Evaluating Climate Pledges from COP26

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres with U.S. President Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson at COP 26 (1 Nov 2021). 

President Joe Biden at COP 26 by The White House is licensed in the public domain

“Code red for humanity,” that was United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres’ reaction to an August 2021 report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s report is yet another example of the clear scientific consensus: climate change is happening and the world must rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid truly devastating consequences. In 2015, 196 countries signed the Paris Climate Accord, an agreement with the goal of limiting global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Under the Paris Accord, countries would reconvene every five years to set increasingly ambitious climate targets. The COP 26 summit in Glasgow, Scotland -- originally scheduled for 2020, 5 years after the signing, but delayed because of the COVID 19 pandemic -- was a critical moment in the world’s fight against climate change. As the COP 26 summit comes to a close, there is no doubt progress was made against climate change. However, the lack of binding commitments, the need for more ambitious action, and the absence of major stakeholders like China and Russia suggest that the summit may not have resulted in the urgent level of action necessary to escape the worst effects of climate change. 

Though COP 26 may not have produced the ambitious climate action scientists say is imperative to completely avert environmental disaster, to view the summit as a failure neglects the progress made. The summit featured many stakeholders including world leaders, government officials, CEOs of multinational corporations, international investment firms, and climate activists. Many of these stakeholders strengthened or reaffirmed commitments made under the Paris Climate Accord. Some highlights included a pledge to end deforestation by 2030, a multilateral agreement to reduce short-term methane emissions, and a surprise joint-statement by the United States and China agreeing to cooperate to fight climate change this decade. 

Although critics have criticized the summit for not taking rapid enough action, the progress made could have a significant impact on the trajectory of climate change. In fact, a recent analysis found that if all pledges made at COP 26 are upheld, then global warming could be limited to just 1.8 degrees. While 1.8 degrees is still above the threshold set by the Paris Climate Accord to avoid irreversible damage, it is still progress compared to the likely 2.4 to 2.9 degrees of warming that will occur if humanity keeps its current trajectory. It is worth noting that the difference between 1.5 or 1.8 or 2.9 degrees may seem insignificant, but climate researchers have found that each additional bit of warming can lead to drastically more dangerous scenarios. 

This is precisely why many critics have argued that the summit has failed to meet the moment. Specifically, there is a concern that countries will not live up to the promises made at this summit because almost all the agreements are not binding. Moreover, many, like environmental activist Greta Thunberg, have criticized world leaders for failing to set more ambitious targets. Part of the concern with the ambitiousness of targets is that many countries’ climate plans rely on becoming net-zero by 2050 but lack a short-term implementation strategy consistent with this long term goal. The aforementioned study that found warming could be limited to 1.8 degrees if all long-term climate goals are met, also found that warming will actually total around 2.5 degrees based on the current status of short-term pledges over the next decade. The question then becomes whether governments can be trusted to live up to their net-zero pledges over the next thirty years, or whether the distant promise of achieving carbon neutrality in the future is just a “con” -- as some environmental groups have called it-- to avoid meaningful climate action and accountability.

Some other issues with the COP 26 summit include the glaring absence of major polluters like China and Russia and the failure to establish a climate fund for developing countries. China’s absence was most notable as China alone accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions than all other developed countries combined. Clearly, if the world wants to meet its climate targets, China will have to play a key role. Thus, their absence from such an important climate summit is less than ideal. Another issue is the $100 billion climate fund meant to transfer $100 billion annually from rich countries to help developing countries address climate change beginning this year. It has become clear that this fund will not happen any time soon. There is hope that this fund may be funded in the next few years, but critics argue that it would be too little too late.

Going forward, there is a clear scientific consensus that more climate action is imperative. A recent analysis found that not a single G20 country has made climate pledges that will sufficiently meet the Paris Climate Accord’s goals. Actions even more ambitious than those pledged at COP 26 are needed if the world is to avert irreparable harm.